MANISH JUNG PULAMI Presently, Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), the biggest amount granted by a bilateral development partner, has become a center of a row between politicians, political parties, academicians and commoners as well. Among the three pillars of Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) -- economics, governance and security -- in order to enhance economic prosperity, "Free and Open Indo-Pacific: Advancing a Shared Vision" released by US Department of States in November 2019, clearly states that,"…support has included $2.9 billion through the Department of State and USAID for the economic pillar of the Indo-Pacific strategy since the beginning of the Trump Administration, and hundreds of millions more through other agencies, including the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)." Hence, the debate of, whether MCC is a part of IPS or not, concludes that, though it is not a part of the security pillar, is a part of the economic pillar of IPS. Nepal's increasing geostrategic importance has increased the role of Nepal in the international arena. Nepal, described as a "yam" between two boulders, to "Buffer State", to "Peace Zone", to "Vibrant Bridge", now has turned into "Competition Zone", and it seems to appear that South Asia to be the center of gravity in strategic thinking of different states. From past, neutrality has been the core foreign policy element of Nepal, and Nepal has claimed a lot of times to be part of the non-aligned movement (NAM) in several diplomatic conundrums. But, Nepal's neutrality has two faces, one "hiding" and another "binding", and the same goes for the NAM. In several instances in history, Nepal has hidden from the light, in the name of neutrality and non-alignment, and also have bind herself to the norms of international laws, UN Charter and multilateralism. Neutrality and NAM have always aided to Nepal's sovereignty and integrity. But the question arises, is it the right strategy for Nepal? Either it is in the case of IPS of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Strategic Autonomy The two familiar words, Nepal in various past instances, have lacked it, and Nepal should adopt it at present while dealing with IPS and BRI, as Nepal wants autonomy and needs a strategy for this autonomy. Strategic autonomy should not be taken as a binary choice for Nepal, rather be seen as a spectrum reflecting favorable and unfavorable dependencies. Nepal should pursue strategic autonomy as a political entity choosing its course of international relations. Strategic autonomy also brings responsibility, if Nepal adopts, she has to share the burden in the international affairs and it also brings forward the insurance policy of hedging in international relations that guards against a deterioration in relations between two states or more. This strategic autonomy could help Nepal balance ambitions and responsibilities as well. Such a strategy seems to serve the present and long-term achievement of the national interest. The purpose of the policy is to increase options, which requires building our own capabilities, far beyond political, where the hierarchy is relatively set, focusing in the economy. But to be clear, strategic hedging doesn't automatically diminish dependency on another actor or increase autonomy overall. What the concept allows is, to maintain the favorable relationship with the neighbours near or far in diplomatic and economic terms focusing on the specific domains that can help autonomy in key strategic areas such as foreign policy. Therefore, this strategy could be seen as a deft strategy to allow general alignment, but with one eye on developing the capabilities needed for independent action. The main understanding is that there is no possibility of operational and political autonomy without economic autonomy. The ultimate logic of this vision of strategic autonomy has far-reaching ramifications for Nepal and its relationship with the whole world. This form of autonomy would go far beyond Nepal's current level of ambition in economy and development and it would imply a significant increase in investment. Autarky is extremely difficult to achieve and some dependencies may be useful for Nepal. Strategic autonomy is clearly more than a defensive or reactive concept, more than separation, and it is not about defending Nepal's way of doing things but also includes a pro-active shaping various dimension -- an ability to set, modify and enforce favorable policy rather than being opposed or forced to follow policy set by others. It is a pre-condition for playing an effective role in shaping Nepal's own foreign policy goals. Absolute strategic autonomy does not exist and the concept of strategic autonomy is relative in the sense that even for a given strategy, there are fifty shades of autonomy. In a nutshell, strategic autonomy can lead Nepal to political and economic emancipation. Nepal still sits in the heart of a web of economic dependencies. Most importantly, Nepal should prepare for long haul. Nepal should aim high when it comes to developing strategic autonomy, and strive to become credible enough autonomously tackle every strategic competition. This will cater to Nepal's freedom to act as a crisis management actor. Dismissing strategic autonomy would not only weaken Nepal but is also a symptom and multiplier of ineffectuality. A profound change in mindset is required Nepal's leaders must accept that they cannot have it both ways, namely a stronger Nepal "on the cheap". Strategic autonomy is a necessary enabler for Nepal to make basic choices about their future. Nepal should unambiguously lay out the terms of engagement for a future partnership with the donor countries. Nepal should seek to foster her dialogue with partner nations, especially with her neighbors on the future of the international order including active approaches to multilateralism and connectivity because “there is no favorable wind for one who does not know where he is heading.”. Strategic autonomy is essential if we are to succeed in transforming Nepal. The major challenge to adopt this policy is that strategic autonomy can only be achieved with political tact.

(The author is the student of International Relations and Diplomacy at Tribhuvan University, Nepal and former Fellow of International Relations at Sichuan University, China.)